the daily snivel

The classic gag of a pie in the face has become a popular resort of those disaffected pranksters who want to humble and ridicule the powerful and puffed-up as they make some grandiose public appearance before what they hope are eager throngs of an adoring public. There have been many examples over the years and in many different parts of the world, including France, Belgium (where Bill Gates met a creamy fate), Canada, and recently the United States. Canada, and Quebec in particular, has seen quite a few episodes targeted at politicians in recent years, including Pierre Pettigrew, BC Premier Bill Vander Zalm, and Tory Leader Joe Clark, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, Quebec Premiers Bernard Landry, Jean Charest, and Jacques Parizeau, and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. There is even an organized group in Quebec, Les entartistes (many of whom are former members of Canada's defunct but immortally silly Rhinoceros Party), who organize many of the pie-throwings. The preferred strategy is to have a confederate shake the target's hand while moving in and proceeding to rub (not throw) a cream pie into the face of the target, whose hand and attention are engaged.

There is certainly an argument to be made, and one that I think many people would agree with, that a pie in the face is a relatively harmless protest that does no harm to anything except shirt collars and egos. Normally the bemused public figure simply clears some of the dripping goop off his or her face and laughs the incident off while the pranksters are hauled away by burly men who spend an awful lot of time working out at the gymnasium in strenuous preparation for just such an occasion. And after awhile the charges are dropped or the sentence is lenient and people get on with their lives, including a return to celebrating the true meaning of pie, which is to be baked, delicious, and eaten.

The pie can also seem like a great way to make a statement. On top of groups who just want to mockingly take the self-important down a peg or two and make them feel foolish, there are those who increasingly feel that their protests against the policies and excesses of the powerful fall on deaf ears, and to them a well-placed pie can create a flurry of media interest and public discussion of the event.

In the end, however, the pie-ing is largely dismissed for what it is -- a childish prank. Not exactly harmful, but counterproductive, puerile, violent, and a waste of pie.

In a formally legal sense, it is also criminal. In Canada, for example, assault is defined by section 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that assault is the intentional application of force without consent (see also sections 265(1)(b) and 265(1)(c) for additional definitions that are not applicable in this context). This is to say that intentionally touching another person without his or her consent is an assault. Now, you have to query whether anyone who ever intentionally touches another person without permission is charged with assault, should be charged, and so on, because in fact we look to context a lot in considering whether it is in the interests of justice to prosecute, or even whether it is that offensive. That said, the civil tort of battery ("assault" in tort law actually refers to the apprehension of the physical contact) requires no proof of damage to attract liability. If you batter someone in the tortious sense, again just an unwanted touch, you stand liable for nominal damages because the conduct is actionable per se given society's interest in protecting of an individual's physical integrity.

So, given the legal implications, even the ridiculous behaviour of rubbing a pie in someone's face goes against what we are normally prepared to consider tolerable behaviour. People are charged, and (assuming the charges are not dropped, for example in an act of prosecutorial discretion) sometimes convicted of assault. Speaking as someone who is not yet a defence lawyer but has two years of experience in the courts through my work as a law student at the legal clinic, I would make arguments against that behaviour truly being criminal, and in the end probably be stuck making some good sentencing submissions and hope that my client can get a discharge or some sort and thus avoid a permanent criminal record. Better still, I'd start off trying to find some more appropriate way of dealing with the charge such as a diversion program that allows the accused to take responsibility, perform some community service, write a letter of apology, and/or make a charitable donation in an act of contrition such that society can be satisfied and the charge can be withdrawn in the interest of not clogging the courts with such matters when there are murder trials backlogged for months and years. But you have to admit, not every police officer, prosecutor, or victim, is going to laugh the matter off, and all of a sudden what started off as a prank wrapped up in your freedom of expression seems an awful lot less attractive once you're required to get up inconveniently early in the morning and shimmy into an uncomfortable, ill-fitting suit because you have to go to court.

There's also the fact that it gives the pie-d person a soapbox on which to thoroughly denounce the actions of the pranksters as a wanton assault on their right to speak and have their opinions and a sign of the thoroughly bankrupt position of the opposition. This is in fact just what happened when someone pie-d Ann Coulter, and when someone else put a pie in the face of David Horowitz. Now, let it be said that Ann Coulter is one of the vilest humans on the face of the earth. Her opinions are nothing short of hateful. She is the Moe the Bartender of pundits -- violent, hate-filled, ugly, and bigoted. Ann Coulter's quotes include such gems as:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

  -- on Muslims, September 13, 2001.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

  -- on liberals, January 2002.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

  -- on terrorism.

So, in October 2004 Ann Coulter was presented with a pie in the face while giving a talk at the University of Arizona. And while I'm in agreement that it's a silly, stupid prank and certainly not a vicious assault, it both runs afoul of the law and the spirit of honest debate. Now, Ann Coulter is not one to engage in honest debate. She is on the record as stating that there can be no useful dialogue between liberals and conservatives, and engages in some of the worst distortions of truth and fact in her jingoistic rhetoric. But all that can be taken from an incident on this is that she is allowed to feel like a victim, and feel like a victim she has. Here's what she said in a New York Observer interview:

I was physically attacked this year. I hear MoveOn.org has a bounty for anyone who throws a pie in my face. Neither of those guys hit me. I think one is still in prison. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. One guy with a broken shoulder and one with a broken nose. And that was when I was traveling totally unprotected. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."

The charges against the pie-throwers were ultimately dismissed, signaling to me that the state felt it was a prank and likely that the courts could better spend time on more substantively serious offences (and that the pair, who were then roughly handled by some burly conservatives in attendance, had suffered enough). But one thing conservatives love to do is feel victimized by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, and such tactics only give them something real, if harmless, to point to as evidence.

David Horowitz, one-time radical 60s leftist now radical right-winger, was also pied while giving a talk, and he took much the same route, claiming to be a victim of an attack on his free speech and that the episode demonstrated all too well how hostile and shallow the left must be if it couldn't tolerate his [nutty] opinions. Horowitz, in fact, has been championing an "Academic Bill of Rights" which will allow students to sue their professors for being "biased" (that is, insufficiently conservative), and has twisted his incident into proving just how badly this bill of rights is needed, because universities are seemingly cramped with hostile radicals who resort to violence when challenged. Sadly No! has more, and had it just right when it said:

1.) The best way to handle people like Horowitz is logically attacking their arguments in Q & A sessions. Hurling a pie is a sign that you aren't thinking so much as reacting- a sure way to lose an argument.

2.) It lets Horowitz whine about how "oppressed" he is, and inspires his moron readers to give him more money.

3.) Everyone has a right to speak without getting pied.

I have to say I must also denounce such actions as pie-throwing as juvenile and counterproductive. Not only does it attract possible legal consequences, but it is unworthy of us. If there is any merit to your beliefs and arguments, they will prevail in an honest argument. Throwing pies suggests you have nothing worthy to say at all, but are simply having a public tantrum.

And speaking of pie, my good friend Mélanie baked a fantastic sugar glazed fieldberry pie today, and it is unbelievably scrumptious. I've rarely had such good pie. In fact, I'm going to eat some right now... Remember now - pie is for eating, not throwing. That way, everyone wins.

UPDATE:

Via World O'Crap, we discover that Ann Coulter is once again also a liar. The charges against the protesters who pie-d her were dismissed because she couldn't be bothered to show up for their trial to give evidence, her claims to victimhood and calling for vigilante justice notwithstanding.